This Thursday, the Teton County Commissioners will develop their comments to Grand Teton National Park regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Study of the Moose-Wilson Corridor.

As part of the signed MOU between the County and NPS, Teton County agreed to share information with GTNP about the social and environmental impacts of this planning area. Grand Teton National Park has asked us all to share our brightest ideas and ask questions that arise to ensure the best outcome for the next 20 years.

Email your commissioners and ask them to consider these questions about the results of their Moose-Wilson Planning Study:

Why was the previously approved southern section of pathway not a part of the Park’s current preferred alternative?

In the 2007 Transportation Plan Environmental Impact Study, Grand Teton National Park approved a southern section of pathway from the South Granite Entrance Station to the Lawrence S. Rockefeller Preserve. The Park says that the presence of grizzly bears in the southern corridor area precludes the construction of a pathway to LSR.

Points to Ponder:

1)    Are grizzly bears more prevalent in the southern section of the Moose-Wilson corridor than in other high-use areas such as Jenny Lake and Signal Mountain area where people camp, hike, and recreate?

The Park’s data shows a surprisingly few grizzly bear observations in the Moose-Wilson Corridor in the southern corridor in the last five years compared to bear observations in and around Jenny Lake and Signal Mountain in the last one year.

Moose-Wilson Road Corridor Bear Observations
Jackson Lake Lodge Bear Observations
Jenny, String, Leigh Lakes Bear Observations
Signal Mountain Bear Observations

The 2007 Transportation Plan EIS for Grand Teton included a pathway along the southern entrance to GTNP to the LSR Preserve. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated this partial pathway in 2007 and recognized that the preferred alternative would have some impact on species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including grizzly bears which might use the Corridor, but that impacts would not jeopardize the species’ continued existence.  (2007 Transportation Plan at 207-214).

2)   Can human/bear interactions be mitigated along a pathway?

The Park is well known for successfully mitigating bear/human interactions by adaptive techniques such as seasonal closures, signage, group travel sizes and food restrictions.

The Human-Bear Interaction Risk Assessment for the July 2014 Moose-Wilson Corridor Management Plan Alternatives prepared by Grant MacHutchon provided recommendations to minimize human-bear interactions, including limiting access to the multi-use pathway to between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm and only allowing use of the pathway between June 1st and August 31st.  (MacHutchon Assessment at v.)  But the Park Service failed to consider the effects of implementing the mitigation recommended in its own expert report.  The Park Service also failed to consider a variety of other potential mitigation measures, including pathway design to provide increased line of sight, noise mechanisms to warn wildlife of approaching bicycles such as rumble strips, and complete pathway closures (similar to recurrent and frequent road closures) when bears are foraging near the pathway.  The failure to consider these mitigation measures, along with their relative effectiveness at addressing the risks posed by human and wildlife interactions, does not support a sound NEPA process.

3) Has the safety of walkers and bikers on the Moose-Wilson road been evaluated?

 A Moose-Wilson Corridor Road Safety Audit was performed in 2014 that confirmed significant safety concerns exist for continued multiple use of the Moose Wilson Road. The risk to bicycles and pedestrians in the Corridor was assessed as moderate-low to moderate-high given infrequent collisions, but a risk of high or extreme injuries. The Safety Audit recommended that among other measures to improve safety, the Park Service should consider a separate pathway for all or part of the Corridor to address long-term safety concerns, and that the Park collect and analyze additional safety data, paying “[s]pecial attention” to bicycle safety in the Corridor.  Id. at 28.  According to the Park’s Visitor Use Management Strategies for the Moose-Wilson Corridor of 2013, 62.5% of cyclists using the roadway felt unsafe.

Did the Park adequately consider air quality and climate change as a part of its environmental assessment?

In our opinion, more attention could be paid to the effects of this plan on the environment. The central component of the Park’s preferred alternative will require that hundreds of vehicles per day idle at the north and south entrances of the Corridor, waiting to proceed under the “one-car-out, one-car-in” rule.  In addition, the Park dismisses or ignores the viability of low impact travel methods such as a small transit system or pathway for managing visitors without their cars.

Points to Ponder:

How will re-routed vehicles impact traffic in Jackson and further impact the environment and Park wildlife on N89?

The Park’s plan when implemented at peak periods will require long idle times, or forces visitors to turn around and find another means of Park access. It is 28 miles from the south entrance of the Park to the North entrance of the Park; visitors that are frustrated by long wait times trying to get into the Moose-Wilson Corridor, may choose to drive to another Park entrance. This diverted traffic will have to drive through the town of Jackson, further adding to summer traffic congestion and potentially increasing the chances for wildlife collisions along N89. Chart of Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions:Highway 89

How does Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, think we can prevent climate change, curb emission and improve air quality?

 By “partnering with communities. Because addressing climate change is the work of every city, every community, and every individual to do their part. We are learning from communities, and we’re also working to empower communities to prepare and adapt.” Jewell said at the International Climate Talks in Paris.

Could transit complement the Park’s desired outcomes with this planning process?

A 2007 Transit Business Plan demonstrated both demand and a desire for an alternative transportation system. Surveys showed that 46% of visitors and 50% of employees were “likely” to “very likely” to use a bus.

“All of the respondents believed that the time was right to further investigate the possibility of transit within the Park. While most asked about specific details, the overall response was positive. Some commented on connecting other modes such as biking and walking, while others commented on partnerships and collaboration efforts. Connections to Jackson, Teton Village and the airport were mentioned as important origins/destinations.” (Transit Business Plan) 

Did the Park use relevant and scientifically justifiable metrics to determine that the maximum capacity for the Moose-Wilson corridor is 550 people at any one time?

The Park’s determination that the Moose-Wilson corridor has a maximum capacity of 550 people at one time was not based on meaningful adverse impacts to Park resources, but rather stems from the 200-car limit set by the Park. Further, the Park’s own data does not support this 550-person limit, as shown through their own studies (2013 Moose Wilson Use Levels, Types, Patterns and Impacts , 2014 Moose Wilson Use Levels, Types, Patterns and Impacts) While FOP believes that the Park should manage automobile use of the road, it should only to be done to preserve and protect the Corridor resources and not restrict public access unnecessarily. In other words, the 200-car limit should not define the Corridor’s visitor use capacity. If the Park was only planning for the road capacity, this might make sense, but the Corridor study area is 10,000+ acres, with reaches that extend west toward the edge of Phelps Lake, north near the border of the Craig Thomas visitor center and south to Granite Guard Station. Limiting a person’s ability to hike on a trail in Granite or Death canyon based on the number of cars that are driving or parked in the corridor correlates disparate data sets to achieve one outcome, and disproportionately limits trail use without justification. As well, the Park’s visitor use capacity reasoning fails to consider any alternatives for transit that could expand and enhance the visitor experience while maintaining and even benefiting natural resources and wildlife.

Time is short – if you don’t want the Moose-Wilson Road to be closed or gated – Act Now for safe public access and a complete pathway!

Until September 15^th, the Public Comment period is open for the Grand Teton National Park Moose-Wilson Road and Pathway.

Please comment today to support public access on the Moose-Wilson Road with reduced traffic and a safe pathway.

Thanks to many public comments in the EIS Scoping (the initial planning step) the National Park Service included open public access to the Moose-Wilson corridor and a safe pathway in one of the draft alternatives – Alternative D.  At this step in the NPS planning process, we need to request that Alternative D be studied as the preferred alternative.

We need you to submit a comment for this next phase of the EIS by September 15 at the link below.

[bsbutton size=”medium” text=”Click Here to Comment” link=”http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=60898″ target=”This page”]

[bsbutton size=”medium” text=”Pathways and Wildlife can co-exist – Biologists affirm” link=”http://www.safeaccessgtnp.org/conservation-recreation-safety-issues-abound-in-grand-teton-bike-path-debate-casper-star-tribune-january-20-2014/” target=”This page”]

1.  What strategies do you like?

We support Alternative D as a preferred, positive option because it reduces overall traffic in a way that is essential to preserving the Moose-Wilson corridor’s unique values, benefits area wildlife with fewer cars, and encourages diverse access for safely enjoying the corridor outside of the car. 

Gates and closures are bad solutions to traffic management.  Instead, inspire and enable more 10-30 percent of visitors to use bikes, feet or transit. 

Park values are best protected under Alternative D, which recognizes that wildlife and park visitors can be thoughtfully managed together, the essence of National Park visitation.  Under Alternative D, visitors experience this part of Grand Teton National Park in a way that is respectful of natural resources, informative, inspiring, and safe.

Alternative D enhances the visitor experience in an environmentally responsible way – providing public access with reduced traffic impacts to wildlife, smart public transit and greater safety for the non-vehicular public on a needed pathway.

2.  What strategies don’t work?

Gates and closures (Alternatives B and C) don’t work.  Gates and closures shift or increase the number of vehicle trips area wide.  For visitors and locals alike under Alternatives B or C to get from the Westbank to Moose and back will be a 50-mile round-trip instead of 7 direct miles that could be experienced on foot, bike, transit or vehicle.  Instead, we can help the National Park Service by innovating real solutions that a good for the environment – like multi-modal transportation and smart transit.

The negative impact of shifted or increased traffic is bad for the environment and bad for wildlife that lives outside the corridor, especially along area roads like 390, 22 and 89, which will inevitably see more traffic and potential wildlife collisions from cars re-routing from road closures to get to the Park’s entrance in Moose. The Moose-Wilson Road has no wildlife fatalities because it is wonderfully slow, narrow and rural – and should be kept that way with fewer cars, smart visitor transit and a pathway.

3.  What other suggestions do you have?

A separate Moose-Wilson pathway is a safety need, not a want, an imperative in any Alternative. It can be placed in an environmentally sensitive way to minimize impacts and close a dangerous gap, which will be even more apparent when the pathway from Jackson to Teton Village is complete by 2015.

Please add more public transit and partnerships as a way to reduce traffic congestion even more in the future.

Instead of two entrance stations on the northern end of the road, combine them into one single station

No action (Alternative A) is not the right solution because it does nothing to help wildlife by reducing traffic levels or manage traffic flow with adaptive strategies.

Decreasing the increased traffic volumes for the long term is the Park’s objective and that is possible only with Alternative D, which uses thoughtful, safer ways to get people out of vehicles and into the outdoors.

Ask for Alternative D to help make meaningful traffic reductions and adaptations so that wildlife can thrive and visitors can have access to their national park.

[bsbutton size=”medium” text=”Click Here to Comment” link=”http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?documentID=60898″ target=”This page”]

Moose-Wilson Corridor Preliminary Alternatives Newsletter

Scoping: Greater Snow King Area Trail Projects